Some of my views on the Holocaust

1. The Holocaust is an established historical fact

Frankly, I consider this point to be simply beyond dispute. The mountain of physical and eye-witness evidence is simply far too vast for any rational thinking person to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or even might not have happened. I'll grant that some rational thinking people havn't been exposed to the evidence. This doesn't change the fact that the evidence exists and clearly establishes that:

• millions of people were killed by the Nazi's for no reason other than that they were Jews.
  
  
• the vast majority of these killings were planned and executed by the German state (i.e. this wasn't a bunch of crazy people running around with guns and poison gas - this was officially sanctioned government activity).
  
  
• literally thousands of people participated in it and many more knew about it. Also, the work was frequently done without any attempt to hide it (at least until it started to become apparent that Germany might not win the war).

To suggest otherwise is to be either sadly mistaken or guilty of some rather unsavory motives.

Side note: Someday fairly soon, there won't be any Holocaust eye-witnesses left alive. Considering the number of historical events which are accepted as fact today without live eye-witnesses, this shouldn't be an issue. For example, would anybody take seriously a suggestion that George Washington might not have been the first U.S. President even though there is a distinct shortage of people left who were actually present when he was sworn into office? Frankly, if the mountains of physical evidence of the Holocaust aren't enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it happened then we can't be sure of any event that happened much over 100 years ago. Personally, even though I have never met anybody who was there at the time, I have absolutely no doubt that George Washington was the first U.S. President just as I have absolutely no doubt that the Holocaust happened.

One last tiny side note: Some argue that if they can't personally examine the physical evidence of the Holocaust then they must remain unconvinced. For what it is worth, I also don't feel the need to personally examine any of the physical evidence. I've read enough about George Washington and about the Holocaust that access to the physical evidence is simply not necessary.

2. There isn't another side to the issue

One favourite tactic of people trying to deny the Holocaust is to argue that they are simply presenting the other side of the issue. Frankly, facts don't have other sides.

Maybe an analogy might help here - if someone were to claim that Napoleon didn't actually invade Russia, would that mean that whether or not Napoleon invaded Russia was now subject to debate? How about if someone claimed that the Battle of Hastings never took place? Would such an opinion warrant serious debate?

Compared to the mountain of evidence supporting the existence of the Holocaust, Napoleon's invasion of Russia and the Battle of Hastings are rather poorly documented events. After all, there aren't any eye-witnesses still alive who saw the Battle of Hastings (1066 A.D.) or Napoleon's invasion of Russia (roughly 1810 A.D.).

Anyone who denies any of these events is simply not in possession of the relevant facts or has some other hidden agenda.

3. People who deny the Holocaust don't have a right to be heard

For that matter, nobody has a right to be heard. Here in Canada and even in the United States, at best, people have a right to speak. They do not have a right to an audience. If we all had a right to an audience then we'd each be able to force the networks to give us air time. Obviously, we don't have the right to network air time any more than we have the right to column space in a newspaper or an audience at the local Speaker's Corner.

If we don't have the right to network air time, why do so many members of the media seem to believe that Holocaust deniers have a right to air time? It truly boggles the mind.

Finally, a newspaper editor who decides to not publish an article on a particular topic is not practising censorship. Rather, they are simply exercising their right to decide what appears in their newspaper. If somebody wants something published and can't find a newspaper to publish it then they are always free to start their own newspaper. The fact that it will take a while to build up circulation is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

N.B. I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. I guess I just draw the line somewhere before right to an audience.

Just in case anyone believes that freedom of speech implies the right to say anything you want, I suggest that they have a look at the libel laws on the books in most countries and consider the legality of yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre. Obviously, even our much vaunted freedom of speech has limits.